Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 are pending. Claims 6, 8-9, 12, and 15-19 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 11 have been amended. Claims 3 and 10 have been canceled. In view of the amendment, the prior art rejection is withdrawn in favor of a new rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol (US 2021/0354372) in view of Jacobs (WO 91/06378).
Regarding claim 1, Krol discloses a method for displacing a continuous energy beam along an irradiation path formed by a sequence of beam positions to solidify a powder material in a powder layer within a work region of a manufacturing device (raw material powder layers irradiated by an irradiation unit with a scanner unit, [0002-04] [0062]), the method comprising: emitting the continuous energy beam in a direction of the powder material so as to form a layer of a component part in an additive manufacturing method (laser beam directed at the raw material to form a melt pool, [0013] [0062]); displacing the energy beam within the work region by overlaying an optical deflection of the energy beam using of a deflection device and a mechanical deflection of the energy beam using a scanner device (laser beam deflected by scan unit 15 and electro-optic deflector 13, [0013] [0062]), wherein the mechanical deflection is configured to position the energy beam at a plurality of irradiation positions arranged within the work region and substantially spanning the work region (scan unit 15 positions the beam substantially spanning the xy plane of the raw material layer, [0065]), and the optical deflection is configured to deflect the energy beam around each of the irradiation positions within a beam region of the deflection device onto at least one beam position of the sequence of beam positions (optic deflector, [0065]), wherein the optical deflection and the mechanical deflection are changed simultaneously or successively so as to scan the sequence of beam positions using the energy beam ([0065] [0067] [0069]), controlling the deflection device and the scanner device such that the energy beam successively scans subsequences, each subsequence comprising at least one beam position of the sequence of beam positions (fast changes in position by electro-optic deflector, slower, bigger deflections by the scanner, the fast, small changes constitute a subsequence, [0066-70]), with the energy beam skipping a region between subsequent subsequences by way of an abrupt change of the optical deflection such that two spatially separated subsequences are successively adopted by the energy beam (rapid changes in position to maintain two or more melt pools, [0026] [0073]), wherein the deflection device is controlled such that the energy beam at one irradiation position of the plurality of irradiation positions is displaced to a plurality of beam positions within a beam region in order to form a beam profile of the beam region during the production of a component part (quasi-beam splitting, [0073]), and the energy beam is abruptly displaced to the plurality of discrete beam positions (rapid deflections, [0066-70] [0073]).
Krol teaches a method substantially as claimed. Krol does not disclose with the energy beam skipping spatially adjacent beam positions in the beam region in a temporal sequence of beam positions, wherein the spatially adjacent beam positions being skipped are irradiated previously or subsequently in the temporal sequence of beam positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling laser irradiation positions for additive manufacturing (p. 1-2), Jacobs teaches with the energy beam skipping spatially adjacent beam positions in the beam region in a temporal sequence of beam positions (nonconsecutive drawing order, p. 33-34, Fig. 7b), wherein the spatially adjacent beam positions being skipped are irradiated previously or subsequently in the temporal sequence of beam positions (By skipping consecutive rays as shown in Fig. 7b, spatially adjacent beam positions are skipped and irradiated previously or subsequently, p. 33-34, Fig. 7b).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krol to skip between spatially adjacent positions because p.33-34 of Jacobs teaches that skipping consecutively placed rows and coming back to irradiate them reduces horizontal curl.
Regarding claim 2, Krol as modified teaches wherein at least one of - a number of subsequences along the irradiation path, - a number of beam positions in one of the subsequences, or - a spatial distance between successively adopted subsequences is determined based on a dissipation of an energy introduced into the subsequences by the energy beam (for maintaining multiple melt pools involves a calculation based on the dissipation of energy to understand what is required to maintain the melt pools (how many times to hit a particular position with the beam), Krol [0026] [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Krol as modified teaches wherein the deflection device comprises an optical material in a passage region provided for receiving the energy beam (electro-optic crystal, Krol [0022]), the material having optical properties which are adjusted to bring about the optical deflection (Krol [0022]), and wherein the deflection device comprises a crystal in order to bring about the optical deflection (Krol [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Krol as modified teaches exciting an acoustic wave with an acoustic wavelength in the optical material for the purposes of forming an acousto-optic diffraction grating (alternative to the electro-optic deflector, an acousto-optic deflector, which also comprises a crystal, Krol [0016]); radiating the energy beam onto the passage region (inherent to an acousto-optic deflector, Krol [0016]); diffracting a majority of the energy beam into a first order of diffraction at a diffraction angle at the acousto-optic diffraction grating (inherent to an acousto-optic deflector, Krol [0016]); guiding the diffracted energy beam to a first of the beam positions (works with first deflection unit, Krol [0016]); and changing the optical deflection of the energy beam by changing the acoustic wavelength (inherent to an acousto-optic deflector, Krol [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Krol as modified teaches wherein spatially non-adjacent beam positions of the irradiation path are adopted successively in time and/or the spaced apart subsequences are arranged spaced apart from one another in the work region by at least one diameter of the energy beam and/or a region of the work region is skipped (jumping around means that adjacent positions are interrupted in time by a beam position in a location away from either adjacent position, Krol [0073]), the region being selected from the group consisting of a not yet irradiated region of the work region, a not to be irradiated region of the work region, and an already irradiated region of the work region (at least one of these, Krol [0073]).
Regarding claim 11, Krol as modified teaches radiating in the energy beam by virtue of the scanner device being controlled in such a way that the energy beam is positioned along a subsequence of irradiation positions in accordance with a scanning path and the deflection device simultaneously being controlled in such a way that the energy beam jumps back and forth between beam positions of a two-dimensional arrangement of beam positions (scanning for linear advance and jumping from deflector, Krol [0073]).
Regarding claim 13, Krol as modified teaches radiating-in the energy beam by controlling the scanner device in such a way that the irradiation position is displaced along a subsequence of irradiation positions in accordance with a scanning direction and controlling the deflection device simultaneously in such a way that the energy beam jumps, in and counter to the scanning direction, between beam positions arranged along the subsequence (scanning for linear advance and jumping from deflector, including jumping back to earlier melt pool, Krol [0073]).
Regarding claim 14, Krol as modified teaches wherein the irradiation path has at least two irradiation zones, each defining a plurality of subsequences of irradiation positions in the form of adjacent, at least partially parallel scanning vectors of a same length (parallel, progressing melt pools 19, Krol [0073], Fig. 2), wherein, to displace the energy beam, the scanner device is controlled in such a way that the energy beam is positioned along a first scanning vector of the scanning vectors in a first of the irradiation zones and the deflection device simultaneously is controlled in such a way that the energy beam jumps back and forth between the first of the scanning vectors in the first of the irradiation zones and at least one further scanning vector of the scanning vectors of a further one of the irradiation zones (quasi-beam splitting as described in Krol [0073]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jacobs (WO 91/06378).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744